Template talk:Infobox economist/Archive 1

Update the template
Shouldn't this template use the meta template Infobox as for example Infobox Person do? Nsaa (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Educational background
How about parameters like  or   (for the current institute or university)? ––Bender235 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Complaints about formatting
I'm reading complaints about people who don't like the formatting of the template. The way the economist's "category" is emblazened in a colorful banner as if that's the person's name. Could we improve the look of the template? Something like Template:Infobox Scientist would be fine. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to remove the coloured banner if that's the consensus of the relevant WikiProject. With the new infobox-based codebase it's trivial to do so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess its not the banner itself that was causing complaints. Its the fact that it wasn't the person's name being highlighted.  People were getting confused thinking that Paul Krugman's name was "Neo-Keynesian economics" or that he was somehow the personification of that idea.  I'm not in the wikiproject though.  I'll go ask there.  Thanks for the quick reply.  DavidRF (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Distinguishing colors for each school of thought?
I like the idea of distinguishing colors in the infobox, one for each school of economic thought. Kinda like we use it in sports (e.g. Tom Brady, DeMarcus Ware) to elucidate which people play on the same team. Which colors exactly is pretty much up for debate, but I suggest using those from the different navboxes. Thoughts? --bender235 (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Embedding voice files
A project I'm running, and a related event in mid-January will soon add around a thousand recordings of article subjects' voices to their biographies. I'd like to embed those in the relevant infoboxes, as in (using Infobox person). Can we add the necessary module parameter to this template? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, please - give them their own little box. Much too crufty and against WP:INFOBOX principles. Of course adding them is an excellent idea, but not in the main box. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes please. Nobody except Johnbod would prefer to . It works well with infobox person, and it should be just as useful in this template. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Undue prominence to the school/tradition parameter
I already motivated my changes in the edit summary: "showing the school/tradition as a big coloured banner above everything else gives it WP:UNDUE prominence". Given that in the version that you just restored this is a colorful banner above everything else, I don't see how this cannot be the case.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, the school/tradition should be in a standard labeled field, not in a coloured banner at the top. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Color was used to designate specific schools of thought since the inception of this infobox in 2007. Underlying lk removed it without prior discussion (please note that you did not also remove the relevant section about color: "Austrian School - firebrick" etc.). See Infobox_colours; using colors helps readers (except those with visual disabilities) retain the information easier. Confer also Template:Infobox_musician. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see a very large banner in that project page: "this page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference", and it hasn't been updated since 2006. I gave you a policy-based reason for the change, which unlike that page is current and community-sanctioned.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced that by having the background color parameter we violate WP:UNDUE. My point is that the school of thought in which an economist works in an especially important piece of information and that associating this piece of information with a color value is useful to our readers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with those suggesting UNDUE. This appears to be an attempt to divide economists into factions, pitting ideological labels against each other. Similarly, I suspect that many of those labels represent synthesis or original research, as economists don't subscribe to a "school labelling" organization like a fraternity. aprock (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Still unconvinced?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then I admit that you have a good point. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As this discussion has been going on, a change was made to the /doc to add Praxeology as a school. (The change was reverted.) Seems that "the deductive study of human action" is not a school of economic thought that should be added to the infobox. Editors are invited to supply rationale. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW: I have posted a notification of this discussion on the Econ & Infobox Project talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Opposed parameter
When the "Opposed" line is used, what comes out is a line saying Opposed and then a list of names. Reading that I am not sure what it means - I first read it at Peter Schiff who is running for Senate, so it could mean "people he is opposed to in general", "people who oppose him", "people opposing him in the upcoming election", "people whose policies he opposes"... etc.

I think there is a difference between "people he is opposed to" and "people whose policies he is opposed to", one is personal. Anyway the word "opposed" on it's own doesn't really say much, in my opinion. The template page says it is important to have it there, but in that case shouldn't it be more obvious for the encyclopedia reader just what it means? Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand how you could have been confused by it, but I was never personally confused by it, nor have I heard of that from anyone else. I think it is pretty self explanatory of an economist infobox that "influences" and a list of names, means that those people influenced the economist in his economic career, "influenced" and a list of names, means that those people were influenced by the economist and his work in the field of economics, and "opposed" and a list of names, means that those were people the economist opposed in the field of economics. It makes perfect sense to me, but I'm open to suggestions of another word to use.


 * P.S.
 * I would guess that the fact that Schiff is a political candidate is a large part of what threw you off, as you did not recognize him as an economist. Should Schiff be elected to the U.S. Senate, his infobox will be changed from economist to Infobox U.S. Senator, so it won't really matter. --JohnDoe0007 (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been reviewing the use of the opposed box, and entries into that field generally consist of synthesis. I've come across multiple infoboxes where the inclusion of the people on that list is unsourced, and more than one where the opposed items do not even appear in the body of the article.  It's not clear what qualifies as opposition.  I suggest this infobox be generally removed, and the specific issues handled directly in the body of the article.  I think the school/tradition item covers the specific ideas more correctly and cleanly than the opposed item. aprock (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Going over the rationale for inclusion of the opposed item, the cited source does not discuss economics in any great detail, nor does it discuss opposed viewpoints on the indicated pages (379-380). In fact, those pages in the 1998 edition of the book are in the chapter devoted to tensions between religious philosophies.  (See amazon for a table of contents: ). aprock (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * After going through google and google scholar for anything which might give weight to the idea that "oppsed" is a central aspect of economic work and finding nothing, I'll be removing the field from the template. Please feel free to restore and discuss if this is problematic. aprock (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

After waiting a good deal of time for feedback on this, I went ahead and removed the label. I was reverted without any policy rationale. I will go ahead and remove the item as original research and synthesis unless someone can make an argument that this is something that belongs in the infobox. aprock (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the removal. The term is too vague. Keeping it because it's been there for some time is not a good rationale. Too often, I've noted, it simply provides a focus point for contentious editing. Comments like "S/he wrote something critical about that person, therefore s/he opposed that person." – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The "opposed" box helps acquaint a reader with an economist's ideas. For instance, John Maynard Keynes page indicates he opposed both Marx and Pigou; that helps contextualize him as a free market interventionist rather than a socialist or communist (or as a (then-mainstream) free market/laissez faire economist). Steeletrap (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Article text is the area to describe a person's ideas. I can't see a legitimate argument for including ideas in the infobox, either for or against ideas. Do we want to include "communism" or "socialism" as items which Keynes "opposed"? E.g., is this opposition central to what Keynes is known for? Nor is it appropriate to include individual names because, as mentioned above, the names become a listing without context. Finally, in reviewing other biographical type infoboxes (scholar, scientist, religious leader, etc.), I do not see any with this particular parameter. – S. Rich (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here are some numbers: this infobox has about 850 transclusions. I looked at 200 of them. The "opposed" line is in 25. Of those 25, 6 include "schools" (Menger, Vickrey,  Keen, Krugman, Schmoller, Hildebrand), 1 has a mix of people & schools (Velben), 4 have concepts (i.e., communism (Ahmad), democracy (Hoppe), montarism (Furtado), command economies (Kornai)). Thus 15/6 have persons listed.  But, in one example (Hayek), an opponent is Sraffa who commented critically on some aspects of Hayek's thought. (Hayek himself is not listed as an "opponent" in the Sraffa article.)  These examples illustrate that the purpose of an infobox – to summarize key facts of the page's subject  – is subverted by the parameter. It is too broad and vague, and too easily abused.  – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW: I have posted a notification of this discussion on the Econ & Infobox Project talk pages. – S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, I have again removed the field. aprock (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not sufficient consensus for this. This is a profound change that alters hundreds of economics articles. The views of two users are not sufficient to establish this. Your arguments have some force, but they need to be developed more thoroughly. Steeletrap (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the arguments against inclusion of this parameter are compelling. The discussion was opened a long time ago and publicized. Little or no support was voiced to keep the parameter or to overcome the arguments. Without more/other editors supporting inclusion of the parameter, there is no consensus to keep the parameter in. At this stage, one editor wanting to restore the parameter will need support from the community. – S. Rich (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments from four years ago have never, in my experience, been used to form a consensus. There are two editors currently calling for a change. That is not sufficient to override a longstanding consensus -- we need more discussion. There are hundreds of WP editors who have added "opposed" sections to the pages of economists. All of them implicitly endorse the use of the "opposed" template. Steeletrap (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Similarly, sourcing or policy support is required for field. It is sufficiently out of the ordinary to require more justification than "it's been there for a long time". aprock (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Several points: 1. the fact that a bad idea has been around for a long time does not make it a good idea. 2. there are not hundreds of editors who have used the opposed parameter; per the numbers above about 25% of the 850 transclusions have the opposed line in-use; and I pointed out how there is inconsistent usage of the parameter. 3. no more discussion is likely to come about; I posted notices of the discussion and we had no takers. 4. more than just two editors question the parameter, Weakopedia does not like it and JohnDoe questions it; that leaves you, Steeletrap, as the only editor. 5. Most importantly, as I said above, the parameter subverts purpose of the infobox; if there is opposition to an economist's ideas, that opposition should be expounded upon in the text where context can explain; a random concept or person's name is too simple. – S. Rich (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You four are still a small minority. You have to contend with everyone who has 'added' an "opposed" box to articles by listing a concept or thinker an economist opposed. That amounts to hundreds of editors. Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We determine consensus from posted discussions, not from people who do not speak up. Your point is very much other people use this parameter therefore .... But following your logic, the counter-point exists. About 75% of the economist infoboxes do not include the "opposed" parameter. – S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In followup, I have removed the "opposed" parameter from all of the economist infoboxes. About 800 templates were looked at. When there was info for the parameter, my edit summary included "removed deprecated parameter from infobox." Many of the infoboxes included blank lines for the parameter, but I did not count them in my editcount. In sum, the parameter was used in 59 instances. Thus, over 92% of the article parameters did not use the parameter. (As mentioned above, the use varied. Some had names, some had rival schools of thought, some had general concepts.) For editors who wish to describe when and how any particular economist is "opposed" to someone or something, the text is a good place to provide such descriptions. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)01:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Reopening of discussion
Regarding the recent revert: I also support the removal of this parameter, and from the discussion I can see that there is a consensus for that. The supposed existence of a 'silent majority' in favour of keeping it cannot be used as an excuse to ignore the outcome of this discussion.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly can and should when an edit affects the content of so many pages. Few users know how to alter the infobox or even know this page exists. This small bunch can't override all of them. We need a broader consensus to ensure that the removal of opposed is representative of the consensus among econ editors. Steeletrap (talk) 02:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject has been notified two months ago, you are the only one opposed so far, I'll say we have a consensus fair and square.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We have three editors (including you) who have clearly stated opposition, and one editor who has expressed support. OP questions its clarity (implies but does not explicitly say s/he opposes it) while John Doe says it's perfectly clear (implies but does not explicitly say he supports it). That's not a consensus. Steeletrap (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you feel you can muster support for the change, then have at it. I posted notices of this discussion and there was no/little added input. WP:CCC will apply, but the burden is on you to garner support to re-add the parameter. – S. Rich (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Steeletrap, you wrote "You four are still a small minority" before I had participated to this discussion, how are we down to three now?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In this edit summary, Steeletrap referred to the opposition parameter as being used in "hundreds" of infoboxes. As stated above, it was used 59 times and without consistent presentation. In any event. I have given this thread a subsection. Let's see who's interested in re-adding the opposition parameter. – S. Rich (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is where you can find other people related infoboxes: Category:People infobox templates. I wonder how many of them use the opposition parameter? – S. Rich (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For content which appears to go against policy and guidelines, consensus is needed for inclusion, not exclusion. aprock (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * if we are !voting, then I !vote for the removal of the parameter as well. Frietjes (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, Steeletrap, please look at WP:SILENCE. – S. Rich (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Consistency with Infobox person
For the sake of consistency can we have this infobox look more like Template:Infobox person? Infobox person is the basis of infoboxes for many biographies, e.g. Template:Infobox officeholder (for politicians, government officials, etc) follows the same style. Infobox economists kinda sticks out like a sore thumb cause the name is stuck outside the box. Darx9url (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, can we have " honorific_prefix  =  " implemented? Darx9url (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Darx9url, I put something in the sandbox. you can see the comparisons in the Template:Infobox economist/testcases.  basically, I rewrote it to use infobox person for the generic parts of the box, and a child infobox for the career-specifics.  the only caveat will be to examine any pages using this template as a module, since the module heading is handled by infobox person.  I imagine there aren't that many instances, so we could just track/check. Frietjes (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That looks very nice. When will you implement it? Do you need me to do anything? Darx9url (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Darx9url, done. Frietjes (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How to combine with predecessor/successor for an economist holding public office?
I'm working on the infobox for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Katharine_Abraham, and I'd like to use several of the economist infobox fields, without losing officeholder infobox fields such as


 * office1     =
 * president1  =
 * term_end1   =
 * predecessor1 =
 * successor1  =

Is there a good way to mix together elements of the economist and officeholder infobox items for a person who is both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EAWH (talk • contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * EAWH, yes, just embed this box in the officeholder box. for an example, see Category:Pages using infobox economist as a module. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Unknown parameters used
I have checked. First I have OK-ed color that is still present in ~400 parameters (editing them would be trivial).

I also met these parameters, maybe they could be added:
 * occupation
 * residence
 * ethnicity (unk in parent template Infobox person!)
 * relatives (parents, children) - useful when they are known/wikilinked?
 * religion (?)

In some cases I have turned that info into notes. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the parameter "influenced = "
I propose getting rid of the parameter "influenced = ". First, there's no way to tell from the text of an article who the person has influenced. With "influences", we can check in the article itself. When a name is added to "influenced" we can't tell what is real and what is spam. Second, there is no reasonable rule we can follow about whether an influenced person should be added to the infobox. Third, the category is a magnet for spam, with fans adding their own names, or adding various other names in order to bulk out the "influenced" list of their heroes. I see no reason to keep the "influenced" parameter. LK (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The parameter should be kept IMHO, but I agree that the criteria ought to be reviewed. You may want to start an Rfc on the matter.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC: Should the parameter "influenced = " be on this template?
Should this template have the parameter "influenced" (meaning those people who the economist has influenced as an economist)? And if it does, what criteria should be used to determine what names may be added to that parameter? LK (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * No There is no easy way to determine who should be added. In many articles the list gets too long, as it's a magnet for spam.  LK (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No Whenever an infobox goes beyond straightforward facts it becomes just O/R & massive oversimplification.   North8000  (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No - the bot sent me. It's an interesting idea but the names of those the economist has influenced can be listed within the body of the article, in it's own section with links. The info box is more of a fast-facts device and is not meant to be comprehensive. It will get too long, and the criteria for addition of any particular individual will likely be contested. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No I agree with SW3 5DL. Determining who would be worthy to be counted on that list is going to be very hard. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes It is not hard to determine who has been influenced by a particular economist. In an academic domain, the person always knows who influenced them, and who they are influence. It seems to be an intrinsic property of academic life, that the academic always knows who is using their work and building on it, and whose work you are using in turn. An academic takes a viewpoint, Peer groups are built, sometimes informally, sometimes by design, where knowledge is shared and new knowledge is discovered, and as people age, people naturally know who is using their knowledge, to push the knowledge bubble further out, and it is that mechanism which enables new dynamic knowledge to be used to create new knowledge. That knowledge, is partly in books, and papers when published, but there is always the brand new stuff, kept in the head, which influences new people, new work somewhere else, via the writing of new thesis, which is one mechanism in the peer group. The person who is writing the thesis must, must choose that subject, be influenced by it. Otherwise it the whole system would break. You can take a direct line, from who discovered the atom, right through to string theory. It is critical that this goes in, otherwise is will partially break the bio articles, because you will miss a key of how knowledge is transferred. The person themselves would like to see it, in an professionally written biography, or autobiography. It a point of pride. L3X1, the information is always available, always and easy to find if the work is done, and if you believe the article is worth it, then it will get done. There is always attribution, it is a professional courtesy at the very least, and a point of pride. scope_creep (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is persuading. What limit (if any) should be instituted? I believe a relevant example is how on many music BLPs, the associated acts section is always having one musician or another added to it. Here, I believe we will have an easier time determining association/influence (per Scope creep's comment), but many many will count as influenced. Dozens perhaps. Should the most notable, or the least notable, or how should we determine who makes the list? We can't have all 34*, can we? Thanks, *random example number L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  02:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is problematic and some arbitrary limit will need to be agreed, perhaps based on what field or culture the actor is in. For people in STEM fields, the number of people that some people influence can be absolutely enormous, e.g. Einstein, so it is always limited to several of their closest collaborators, within a time period. For Niels Bohr, they mention and many others. On music BLP and popular culture, it is driven by fandom, and always a subjective decision. So some limit within a cultural frame will need to agreed, perhaps established for each field is needed? I have some refs here, but brain is fried, more later:



scope_creep (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No  Criteria for appropriateness of inclusion in such a list is too subject to debate for an infobox, and would likely be different for different economists, which also makes it inappropriate for an infobox, the whole idea of which is to be uniform. Out of context, it's not really clear what "influence" means. Influence could mean that an economist builds on another's ideas for a particular article, for his or her whole body of work, or by reacting against the other person's ideas, for example? Also, for many significant economists (including but not limited to just about anyone who had won a nobel prize), lists would be ridiculously (in context of infobox) long. Important influences can be in body of article with appropriate citations.Federalist51 (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No It is too tough and maybe controversial to determine who is really worthy of being mentioned there, and sometime the list can be too long, making it perfect spam.--Kostas20142 (talk) 10:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes the template documentation already says how to decide who should be added to the influences section: Entries in influences, notable_students, school_tradition, and contributions should be explained in the main text of the article. Those that are not mentioned in the main text may be deleted. The example in the template - Milton Friedman - shows a long list of names after Influenced.  I don't have time to check them all, but looked at Rand Paul and saw that Friedman was mentioned in his article.  So, if you add someone to the influenced category, the economist whose article you're editing should be mentioned in the influenced person's article as well, or it can be deleted.  Seems sensible, consistent and easy to maintain. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  22:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No - As noted above there's gonna be edit wars etc over who should and shouldn't be named etc etc so it's best to simply not have it at all. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No The issue is fraught with "opinion stated as fact" for Wikipedia, especially since it is often impossible to aver who is, or is not, an "influence" of someone else unless there is clear self-identification.  As "opinion" it may be placed in the body of an article, but use of opinions-as-fact-in-infoboxes seems errant at best. Collect (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * What if there was a clear rule, like: "In order to be on the list, the person must mention in a published work that they were influenced by the subject"? L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  13:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I.e. genuine and specific self-identification which I have often iterated about BLPs. Collect (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As per above, I think any reliable source should be OK. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  15:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing template parameters that should be added
To be more consistent with the Infobox scientist and Infobox academic templates, I would like to suggest the additions of the parameters | thesis_title =, | thesis_url = and | thesis_year = be added to this template so readers can quickly access the person's doctoral thesis. To get around this current limitation, I have noticed that some editors are inappropriately using the Infobox scientist template in place of the more appropirate Infobox economist template for articles about economists. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Coloured backgrounds for Infobox economist
Hi - in the recent edits you made to the template are you able to explain the coloured (yellow) backgrounds added to the header fields? My slight concern is over accessibility - for example the infoboxes for 'Academic' and 'Scientist' just use a bold centred effect (Template:Infobox_academic, Template:Infobox scientist), and adding colour can have unintended side effects.

Are you able to comment on your thinking at all please? Quite00 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For certain, great question. When I was researching all the subjects using this infobox, I noticed it was very disorganized, with out any breaks. Since, the number of labels exceeds 20, The design needed improvement, if you look at the youtuber infobox, it has the same format, as well alot of specific category infoboxes. Thus a color needed to be chosen for the breaks and in regards to the color, I thought it should be between 2 colors, green or gold, because those represent currency or commodities (gold being the worlds most relatable commodity), just like the youtuber infobox is red, in alignment with youtube's color theme. The design needed much improvement . CelebrityBuzz (CelebrityBuzz) 10:17, 4 April 2020

Institution disappeared
Something in Special:Diff/947197834 made the "Institution" field disappear from the infobox. I don't know template syntax well enough to figure out what caused the problem. Pinging. Wikiacc (¶) 15:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I will fix this issue, its a small bug. CelebrityBuzz (CelebrityBuzz) 10:17, 4 April 2020
 * Fixed. Please check. CelebrityBuzz (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the fix didn't work. See the side-by-side comparisons at Template:Infobox economist/testcases. The one on the right has the institution, and the one on the left does not. Wikiacc (¶) 21:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , check now, was tricky, but got it done. CelebrityBuzz (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Thanks for taking care of this. Wikiacc (¶) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)